All of the commentary and site information that was in this area  has been   Archived.

FOR PICTURES  RELATED TO THE CURRENT PAGE SEE:   PHOTOS    

DAILY NEWS OF NOTE, or,

"'Almost Daily' Notes on News

and Other 'Stuff'"

As of Nov. 8th Less Bush

_____________________________________________________

REMODELING IN PROGRESS

10-18-05 Site Changes 

SEE: JAR2.com: As you may have noticed the site has changed quite a bit. I have been consolidating the information being hosted on my server into tighter groups and have eliminated some of the pages altogether. For  example the Student's page and the IQ page are now one, the Wallpaper page now contains links to almost all of the photographic content on the JAR2 server, and so on and so forth, if you have any suggestions please send them. I hope that some of you are actually reading my stories in the window above and that you enjoy them. That is all for now, enjoy!

John

‡®©™

  ooo0 

  (    )   0ooo            

   \  (    (    )

    \_)     )  /          

            (_/                       

☼``*•-,,_♥♪♥ ПРИВЕТ♥♪♥_,,.-•*`°☼ ☼``*•-,,_♥♪♥ ПРИВЕТ♥♪♥_,,.-•*`°☼ ☼``*•-,,_♥♪♥ ПРИВЕТ♥♪♥_,,.-•*`°☼ ☼``*•-,,_♥♪♥ ☼``*•-,,_♥♪♥ ПРИВЕТ♥♪♥_,,.-•*`°☼ ☼``*•-,,_♥♪♥ ПРИВЕТ♥♪♥_,,.-•*`°A :-)

story here

_____________________________________________________

What happens next? You tell me...

The intrepid young man, naïve in his unawareness of the ramifications of his actions, boldly proceeded with his as of yet unsuccessful forays into the black arts. Machiavellian manifestations stemming from previously attempted spells only served to obfuscate the true source of the evil permeating his life in myriad ways. Were he to have believed in ancient Egyptian curses, the source would have been clear, but as with the other victims of the curse of the boy pharaoh enlightenment only came at the moment of death.

           Into the darkness he drove, through the mists and the fog which played tricks on his eyes. He had been driving for six hours through the forest and was becoming increasingly nervous as he drove deeper and deeper into what was becoming pure wilderness. The trees had become stranger and stranger as he drove on, at first he had dismissed the moss and the weird limbs as nothing to get excited about but now he was becoming afraid. The trees were twisted and knarled and were beginning to choke in on the road which had become a narrow one lane path through the thickets. The forest here was so dense that he could not see into it at all now and the trees, whose limbs now met above the road were getting closer and lower. In effect making a tunnel through which he tried to maintain a healthy rate of speed, something telling him not to dare to slow down. It  had become so narrow that he could not have turned around had he wanted to and want he did.  

Copyright © 2005 by John Robles II

_____________________________________________________

FOR PICTURES  RELATED TO THE CURRENT PAGE SEE:    PHOTOS  

What happened to www.politirx.org?????

Politicians Start Wars Not Soldiers

The Pogrom Continues in Iraq 74/

Top Ten Repukes/Alito In

01-31-06

DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND

SEE:   The Top 10 Conservative Idiots (No. 230)

Perhaps if George W. Bush had taken it seriously when he was handed a daily briefing on August 6th 2001 titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.," the world would be a different place right now. But he didn't.

Still, Bush started to take bin Laden seriously after September 11th, right? For example, here's what he had to say on March 13, 2002:

Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE RESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I - I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

The Pogrom Continues in Iraq 73/

Alito=FILIBUSTER

Dear John,

Yesterday, Senator Ted Kennedy and I told our colleagues that we supported a filibuster of Judge Alito's nomination for the Supreme Court. And we weren't alone. But the bottom line is that it takes more than two or three people to filibuster successfully. It's not "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." If you want to stop Judge Alito from becoming Justice Alito, use your own email list and organize. We can't just preach to our own choir. We need to prove to everyone - from our friends and neighbors to our fellow Senators - that the American people know Judge Alito will take our country in the wrong direction, and they expect something to be done about it.

So I'm asking you to join Senator Kennedy, me, and concerned citizens across America who are signing this petition to support a filibuster. If there was ever a time to forward an email on to friends and family, this is it. One way or another, we're going to find out in the next few days if Judge Alito is going to become Justice Alito. You know where I stand. The time to make your voice heard is now. So please sign this filibuster petition and get as many friends as you can to do the same.

Sign the filibuster petition

If Judge Alito gets on the Supreme Court, it will be an incredible mistake for America. And remember, this is one mistake that we can never take back.

I voted against Justice Roberts, but I feel even more strongly about Judge Alito. Why? Rather than live up to the promise of "equal justice under the law," he has consistently made it harder for the most disadvantaged Americans to have their day in court. He routinely defers to excessive government power no matter how much government abuses that power. And, to this date, his only statement on record regarding a woman's right to privacy is that she doesn't have one.

There isn't a shred of doubt in my opposition to Judge Alito's nomination. I spent a lot of time over the last few years thinking about what kind of person deserves to sit on the highest court in the land, so I don't hesitate a minute in saying that Judge Alito is not that person. His entire legal career shows that, if confirmed, he will take America backward. People can say all they want that "elections have consequences." Trust me, I understand. But that doesn't mean we have to stay silent about Judge Alito's nomination.

Sign the filibuster petition

President Bush had the opportunity to nominate someone who would unite the country in a time of extreme division. He chose not to do this, and that is his right. But we have every right -- in fact, we have a responsibility -- to fight against a radical ideological shift on the Supreme Court. This nomination was a sellout to the demands of the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. The president gave no thought to what the American people really wanted - or needed. So now that the president and Judge Alito have proven they won't stand up for the majority of Americans, we have to stand up. We have to speak out. That's the true meaning of "advice and consent."

Sincerely,

John Kerry

 

The Genocide Continues in Iraq 72/

Bush the Dictator-Fear Monger/

Why Does Bin Laden Show Up Everytime

Bush is in Trouble ????? Any Takers ?

  “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders, that is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
Hermann Goering
(Nazi planner)

01-27-06

King George the Stupid. This article sums things up so well that I decided to publish it in its entirity rather than just a snippet. For those nearby.

SEE: SLATE

The Power-Madness of King George
Is Bush turning America into an elective dictatorship?
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006, at 3:44 PM ET

It's tempting to dismiss the debate about the National Security Agency spying on Americans as a technical conflict about procedural rights. President Bush believes he has the legal authority to order electronic snooping without asking anyone's permission. Civil libertarians and privacy-fretters think Bush needs a warrant from the special court created to authorize wiretapping in cases of national security. But in practice, the so-called FISA court that issues such warrants functions as a virtual rubber stamp for the executive branch anyhow, so what's the great difference in the end?

Would that so little were at stake. In fact, the Senate hearings on NSA domestic espionage set to begin next month will confront fundamental questions about the balance of power within our system. Even if one assumes that every unknown instance of warrant-less spying by the NSA were justified on security grounds, the arguments issuing from the White House threaten the concept of checks and balances as it has been understood in America for the last 218 years. Simply put, Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run indefinitely, the executive supremacy they're asserting won't be a temporary condition.

This extremity of Bush's position emerges most clearly in a 42-page document issued by the Department of Justice last week. As Andrew Cohen, a CBS legal analyst, wrote in an online commentary, "The first time you read the 'White Paper,' you feel like it is describing a foreign country guided by an unfamiliar constitution." To develop this observation a bit further, the nation implied by the document would be an elective dictatorship, governed not by three counterpoised branches of government but by a secretive, possibly benign, awesomely powerful king.

According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the putative author of the white paper, the president's powers as commander in chief make him the "sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs." This status, which derives from Article II of the Constitution, brings with it the authority to conduct warrant-less surveillance for the purpose of disrupting possible terrorist attacks on the United States.

That power already sounds boundless, but according to Gonzales, this sole organ has garnered even more authority under the congressional authorization for the use of military force, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. This resolution is invariably referred to by the ungainly acronym AUMF—the sound, perhaps, of civil liberties being exhaled by a democracy. In the language of the white paper, the potent formula of Article II plus AUMF "places the president at the zenith of his powers," giving him "all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."

This somewhat daffy monarchical undertone accompanies legal reasoning that recalls Alice's conversation with the March Hare. "AUMF" is understood by the Justice Department to expressly authorize warrant-less surveillance even though the resolution that Congress passed neither envisioned nor implied anything of the kind. The president's insistence that he alone can divine the hidden meaning of legislation is of a piece with his recently noticed practice of appending "signing statements" to bills—as in, "by signing this anti-torture bill into law, I pronounce it to signify that it has no power over me." Similarly, in his white paper, Bush as much as declares: "I determine what my words mean and I alone determine what yours mean, too."

Twisting vague statements into specific authorization is a stretch. But it is in inverting specific prohibitions into blanket permission that Gonzales reaches for the genuinely Orwellian. The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 not only does not authorize Bush's warrant-less snooping but clearly and specifically prohibits it by prescribing the FISA court system as the "exclusive" method for authorizing electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes. With a little help from the white paper, however, that protection goes aumf as well; Gonzales proposes that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act must either be read as consistent with the position that King Zenith can wiretap whomever he wants (thus becoming meaningless) or, alternatively, be dismissed as an unconstitutional irrelevancy.

Bush's message to the courts, like his message to Congress, is: Make way, subjects. His quiet detour around the federal judges who sit on the FISA court is entirely consistent with the White House position in the big terrorism civil liberties cases that federal judges lack jurisdiction to meddle with presidential decisions about whom to lock up and how to treat them. In the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, curtailed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's ability to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely without a hearing. In a plurality opinion, O'Connor wrote "a state of war is not a blank check for the President." The Justice Department memo, however, cites Hamdi as ballast for its stance that when it comes to spying domestically, Bush has not only a blank check but a wallet full of no-limit platinum cards.

The final problem with Gonzales' theories of unfettered executive authority is that they, as the lawyers say, prove too much. The Article II plus AUMF justification for warrant-less spying is essentially the same one the administration has advanced to excuse torture; ignore the Geneva Conventions; and indefinitely hold even U.S. citizens without a hearing, charges, or trial. Torture and detention without due process are bad enough. But why does this all-purpose rationale not also extend to press censorship or arresting political opponents, were the president to deem such measures vital to the nation's security?

I don't suggest that Bush intends anything of the kind—or that even a Congress as supine as the current one would remain passive if he went so far. But the president's latest assertion that he alone can safeguard our civil liberties isn't just disturbing and wrong. It's downright un-American.

The Genocide Continues in Iraq 71/

British Spies Screw Up Again

01-26-06

Arnold!!! Could it be you really are a hero????? Seems the Governor has the guts to go against the fascists. A muted bravo... Could be damage control.(

SEE: SanDiego

Besides the hiring of Kennedy, Schroeder said, conservatives dislike the governor's call for an increase in the minimum wage and bipartisan approach to appointing judges.

01-26-06

Seems like the Queen's best have messed up again and gotten caught red handed.

SEE:  FSB   CRYPTOME.RU

SOURCE:

СОТРУДНИКИ РОССИЙСКИХ СПЕЦСЛУЖБ ВЫЯВИЛИ ФАКТЫ ФИНАНСИРОВАНИЯ БРИТАНСКИМИ РАЗВЕДЧИКАМИ НЕКОТОРЫХ НЕПРАВИТЕЛЬСТВЕННЫХ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЙ В РФ
Москва. 22 января. ИНТЕРФАКС
 

Russian Special Services Personnel Report Discovery of British Secret Service's Financing of Several Non-Governmental Foreign Entities in the Russian Federation

Moscow January 22 INTERFAX

Сотрудники российских спецслужб выявили факты разведдеятельности против России, осуществляющейся рядом сотрудников посольства Великобритании в Москве. Телеканал "Россия" 22 января в программе "Специальный корреспондент" показал кадры оперативной съемки, а также комментарий сотрудников ФСБ, которые доказывают факт разведдеятельности против России.

Russian special services personnel have uncovered espionage activities against Russia involving personnel from the British Embassy in Moscow. The TV station "Russia", on January 22 on the program "Special Reports", broadcast operational images as well as commentary by FSB personnel which prove the espionage activities against Russia. 

Всего интерес у российских спецслужб вызвали четыре британских дипломата - помощник официального представителя британской разведки в России Пол Кромптон, второй секретарь посольства Марк Доу, координировавший деятельность "Фонда глобальных возможностей" при МИД Великобритании и курировавший некоторые российские НПО, секретарь-архивист посольства Кристофер Пирс, который работает в России с 2002 года, и секретарь-архивист Эндрю Флемминг, который работает в России с 2004 года.

Of interest to Russian Special Services are four British diplomats; assistant to the official representative of the British secret service(s) in Russia, (Third Secretary for Political Affairs) Paul Crompton, Second Secretary for Political Affairs Marc Doe who were responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the "Global Possibilties Fund under the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs" and worked as couriers for several Russian NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations).  As well; Christopher Pirt, who has worked in Russia since 2002 and Andre Fleming, who has been working in Russia since 2004. 

В программе утверждалось, что через М.Доу поступали деньги для некоторых НПО, в частности, для Московской Хельсинкской группы и фонда "Евразия". В эфире были показаны копии платежных документов с подписями М.Доу, согласно которым крупные суммы денег переводились данным НПО.
 

The program backed up claims that through Doe money was transferred to several NGOs, most frequently to The Moscow Helsinki Group and the Eurasia Fund. Copies of financial transfer documents signed by M Doe were broadcast on the program which point to large money transfers to the NGOs in question.

Как заявила в эфире пресс-секретарь ФСБ России Диана Шемякина, большинство НПО в России созданы, финансируются и существуют под патронажем правительств и общественных организаций США и их союзников по НАТО.

As was reported on the broadcast, FSB Press Secretary Diana Shemyakina stated that most NGOs in Russia were created, are financed, and exist under the patronage of governmental and public organizations in the US and by its NATO allies.

В телевизионной передаче также было отмечено, что контрразведчики обнаружили необычные технические средства, примененные британцами впервые в истории спецслужб. Осенью 2005 года К.Пирс привез в один из скверов на окраине Москвы камень со встроенным устройством, способным получать и передавать информацию. Оперативный сотрудник ФСБ России сообщил в телеэфире, что в определенное время в сквере появлялся российский гражданин, завербованный британской разведкой, который пересылал данные с переносного компьютера на аппаратуру, находящуюся в камне. Через некоторое время британский разведчик, проходя мимо камня, считывал информацию с помощью карманного компьютера. Российским контрразведчикам удалось задержать российского гражданина, который уже дал признательные показания.
 

During the program it was also noted that counter espionage agents discovered an unusual device used by the British for the first time. In the fall of 2005, Mr. Pirt placed a "rock", which housed electronic equipment capable of receiving and sending data, in one of the squares on the outskirts of Moscow. FSB operational personnel reported on the program that at pre-arranged times a Russian citizen recruited by British espionage, showed up on the square and transmitted data from a portable computer to the receiver in the "rock". A short while later his British controller would pass by the "rock" and upload the information onto a pocket PC. Russian counter-espionage agents were able to apprehend the Russian citizen, who has already provided incriminating information.  

Translation by JARII

SOURCE: WWW.FSB.RU

Чудо-камень изнутри

The insides of the wonder rock.


Осенью 2005 года К.Пирс привез в один из скверов на окраине Москвы камень со встроенным устройством, способным получать и передавать информацию

In the fall of 2005 Mr. Pirt placed the "rock", capable of receiving and transmitting data, in one of the squares on the outskirts of Moscow


По внешнему виду - обыкновенный булыжник

On the outside an ordinary cobblestone.


Но ренген говорит, что внутри сложная начинка

X-rays show a "complicated" filling


Посольство Великобритании и сотрудники посольства

British Embassy and Embassy Personnel


Марк Доу

Marc Doe


Кристофер Пирс

Christopher Pirt


Пол Кромптон

Paul Crompton


Флеминг, но не тот

Fleming, "not that one!"(sic)

"Sense of humour?"


eurasia foundation

Their Response


moscow helsinki group

More

The Tragic Losses Continue in Iraq 70/

Bin Laden Releases a New sHit Tape; Blah-Blah-Blah...Hey George!!

I'm Still Heeeeeeere...Nya-Nya...

But Wait...Is He Really Offering Peace???!

01-19-06

SEE: NET

Long time Bush family friend, ex-CIA agent Tim Ossman, AKA Ossaaaama Bin-Ladle makes an appearance, promises to kill more innocents, gloats, proves he is still delusional, states crap we already know, and spews more crap diguised as Islam, defiling Islam once more and proving to the world at large that George Bush is a disaster and he (Bin-Boy) has gotten what he wants....I don't know who is worse anymore...I think they deserve each other... If his offer of peace is genuine then he, for one, has learned something... But hey, peace sells but the Bush administration will surely not buy it... I mean what would happen to all those Halliburton bucks? Wish he'd choke.

Still freezing here.((( Good night.

By The Associated Press
Thu Jan 19, 9:23 PM ET

The following is the full text of a new audiotape from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Parts of the tape were aired on Al-Jazeera television, which published the entire version on its Web site. The text was translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press.

Bin Laden appears to be addressing the American people:

My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them. I did not intend to speak to you about this because this issue has already been decided. Only metal breaks metal, and our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite of that.

But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them (bin Laden's followers) on their land than their fighting us (Americans) on our land.

I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses, the destruction of the soldiers' morale there and the rise in cases of suicide among them. So you can imagine the state of psychological breakdown that afflicts a soldier as he gathers the remains of his colleagues after they stepped on land mines that tore them apart. After this situation the soldier is caught between two hard options. He either refuses to leave his military camp on patrols and is therefore dogged by ruthless punishments enacted by the Vietnam Butcher (U.S. army) or he gets destroyed by the mines. This puts him under psychological pressure, fear and humiliation while his nation is ignorant of that (what is going on). The soldier has no solution except to commit suicide. That is a strong message to you, written by his soul, blood and pain, to save what can be saved from this hell. The solution is in your hands if you care about them (the soldiers).

The news of our brother mujahideen (holy warriors) is different from what the Pentagon publishes. They (the news of mujahideen) and what the media report is the truth of what is happening on the ground. And what deepens the doubt over the White House's information is the fact that it targets the media reporting the truth from the ground. And it has appeared lately, supported by documents, that the butcher of freedom in the world (Bush) had decided to bomb the headquarters of the Al-Jazeera in Qatar after bombing its offices in Kabul and Baghdad.

On another issue, jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands.

As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.

And I say that, despite all the barbaric methods, they have not broken the fierceness of the resistance. The mujahideen, thank God, are increasing in number and strength — so much so that reports point to the ultimate failure and defeat of the unlucky quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Declaring this defeat is just a matter of time, depending partly on how much the American people know of the size of this tragedy. The sensible people realize that Bush does not have a plan to make his alleged victory in Iraq come true.

And if you compare the small number of dead on the day that Bush announced the end of major operations in that fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I say. This is that Bush and his administration do not have the will or the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons.

And so to return to the issue, I say that results of polls please those who are sensible, and Bush's opposition to them is a mistake. The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he (Bush) claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of (our) energies. At the same time, the mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries. The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition. The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission.

Based on what has been said, this shows the errors of Bush's statement — the one that slipped from him — which is at the heart of polls calling for withdrawing the troops. It is better that we (Americans) don't fight Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours.

We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars — which lets us understand the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war.

If you (Americans) are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book "Rogue State," which states in its introduction: "If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all."

Finally, I say that war will go either in our favor or yours. If it is the former, it means your loss and your shame forever, and it is headed in this course. If it is the latter, read history! We are people who do not stand for injustice and we will seek revenge all our lives. The nights and days will not pass without us taking vengeance like on Sept. 11, God permitting. Your minds will be troubled and your lives embittered. As for us, we have nothing to lose. A swimmer in the ocean does not fear the rain. You have occupied our lands, offended our honor and dignity and let out our blood and stolen our money and destroyed our houses and played with our security and we will give you the same treatment.

You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will not be able to prevent us from a dignified death. Failing to carry out jihad, which is called for in our religion, is a sin. The best death to us is under the shadows of swords. Don't let your strength and modern arms fool you. They win a few battles but lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are much better. We were patient in fighting the Soviet Union with simple weapons for 10 years and we bled their economy and now they are nothing.

In that there is a lesson for you.

Maru puts it all into the proper perspective once again. Thank God....

SEE: My Favorite Blogger

Whatever

"It is no accident that we haven't been hit in more than four years." - VP Dick Cheney, yesterday.

It is no accident that this planet has not been hit by a giant meteor in the past four years.

It is no accident that sabretooth tigers have not rampaged through our towns and cities devouring our children.

It is no accident that black holes have not formed in our atmosphere, sucking out our oxygen or our precious bodily fluids.

It is no accident that the Martian fleet has not attacked to kidnap our women these past four years.

It is no accident that in his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.

It is no accident that ... gak! ack! :: thud ::.

Mark (Sir Morford) says it like no one else can...

SEE: My Favorite Columnist

===== Mark Morford's Notes & Errata =====
SFGate.com - Friday, January 20, 2006

Sam Alito On Brokeback Mountain
What do the bitter neocon nominee and the amazing Oscar-bound film have in common?
 

By Mark Morford

There is this theory, more of a truism really, tossed about like a fuzzy beach ball by the gurus and the masters and the mystics since Jesus was but a lint ball of possibility in the Great Belly Button of Time.

It goes like this: When human consciousness expands, for whatever reason and with whatever stimulation and even if you can only measure it in hairsbreadth, when our nasty habit of harsh judgment falls away and people begin to get a little bit, you know, lighter, there is always, as sure as there's someone who hates the sunrise, a clampdown, a recoil, a desperate need by the terrified and ever-paranoid conservative sect to, you know, put a quick stop to this so-called awakening crapola ASA-damn-P.

As soon as people begin realizing there's more to this brief little slice of existence than hate and war and the constant drumbeat of fear, there's always resistance, a reactive sneer at the idea that people might be waking up, even a little, and it's all in the name of protecting the status quo and defending the power base and not upsetting any of those carefully wrought prejudices, about making sure everyone stays quiet and doesn't ask any difficult questions of the Authority.

Religious groups make phone calls and complain. Big chunks of money get thrown into the pockets of sanctimonious politicians. Quasi-religious bonk-job leaders declare sex and music and gay people the source of all woes and vices and diseases. Ugly new laws get passed. And yes, bitter, convulsive justices get appointed to the Supreme Court. ...

(click here to read the rest)
 

The Mindless Slaughter Continues in Iraq 69/

It's Coooooooold Out

01-19-06

SEE: this

Well it's 04:15 and I just got back in from warming up the car, it's so cold that if I don't do it every for hours the poor old thing will not start. I just checked the thermometer hanging outside the kitchen window and it's -32°C, that's -25.6°F without the wind-chill factor. Northern wind blowing in at about 10 mph which makes it even colder. since that is the coldest I have ever seen since I started living here I thought that would be something worth mentioning. Almost everyone I know who drives has had car trouble and I tell everyone, "Warm the car up at least every three hours. I am running an almost 90% antifreeze to water ratio and the stuff in the over-flow reservoir looks like a green slurpee.

My most reliable weather source, an Aeroflot pilot, told me that it would get to minus 40 tonight. Minus 40 Celsius is minus 40 Fahrenheit in case you were wondering. Even here the schools are closed and life has slowed down noticeably.

01-18 ISP is up

01-18 ISP is down

The Oil-Exploration Continues in Iraq 68/

Let's Not Let Them Pull the Wool Over Our Eyes Again !!!

01-16-06

SEE: MARU  PHOTOS

Impeach #ucking everybody

"Americans of almost every stripe don’t want a President wiretapping their phones or snooping on their e-mails without warrants. Americans of almost every stripe don’t want a President who puts a crown on his head."

The Dwarf Judas: You know, if the president did break the law or circumvent the law, what’s the remedy?

Repug Arlen Specter: Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A president — and I’m not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis, but you’re asking, really, theory, what’s the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price.

The Pogrom Continues in Iraq 67/

U.S. Trying to Build Case for Iran Invasion/

Welcome Cryptome

01-16-06

SEE: this

I have come to the conclusion after analyzing all of my open-source information that the Bush Administration is once again testing the waters for implementing scenarios that will build up to an invasion of Iran.

This has long been the goal of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. Unfortunately for them earlier attempts to get their plan under-way have been hampered by the fiasco they have created in Iraq.

The world and the American people, already suspicious and untrusting, will not allow the administration the carte-blanche they had after 9-11 when dealing with Iran, so it would be hard at this point to bolster support for an Iranian invasion on the grounds that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and possesses WMDs. It would take an act of open agression or a declaration of war by the Iranians to allow the Bush Administration to put forth their planned invasion.

John Robles 

01-16-06

I have decided to provide cryptome.org a mirror on my server. I may not agree with everything John Young does but I support him in what he has been doing to try to keep our out-of-control  government accountable for its actions. His dedication to the men and women dying in Iraq is also laudable. Check it out, you might be surprised.

SEE: CRYPTOME.RU

01-16-06

Cuban spies mess up and get caught. Or another trampling of civil rights?

SEE: LA TIMES

According to the federal indictment, Alvarez had allegedly spied for Cuba since 1977, and his wife since 1982.

"I'm flabbergasted," said Herbert C. Kelman, emeritus professor of social ethics at Harvard University, who mentored Alvarez in conflict resolution and traveled with him to Cuba. "I considered him an honorary student of mine. I have the highest regard for him as a fine and knowledgeable colleague with the best of intentions.
 

The Pogrom Continues in Iraq 66/

Presidential Law-Breaking OKAY

01-14-06

The weekly update from Media Matters for America

This Week:

Alito hearings double standard, part one

Alito hearings double standard, part two

Chris Matthews: Presidential law-breaking just "part of the job"

Media continues to spin Bush domestic spying operation

Alito hearings double standard, part one

A frequent theme of media coverage of Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s nomination hearing has been that Democrats -- but not Republicans -- entered the hearing with closed minds, having already decided how they were going to vote.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been one of the most prominent proponents of this storyline. As Media Matters for America noted, Blitzer asked Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) during a January 9 interview: "It sounded, based on your opening statement, as if you have already made up your mind. You are going to oppose this nominee. Is that right?" Yet, during a subsequent interview, Blitzer chose not to ask Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) whether he had made up his mind, despite Frist's effusive praise of Alito.

Blitzer was back at it two days later, declaring: "Some Democrats are delivering an early verdict on Alito's performance." Blitzer did not mention the "early verdict" issued by Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham [R-SC], who used his opening statement to tell Alito: "It's possible you could talk me out of voting for you, but I doubt it. So I won't even try to challenge you along those lines. I feel very comfortable with you being on the Supreme Court based on what I know."

Blitzer wasn't the only one in the media to suggest that Democrats entered the hearings with a closed mind -- and he did at least ask one Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA], whether he had made up his mind about the nominee before the hearing began. The Associated Press, for example, reported on January 11 that "Republicans complained that Democrats have already made up their minds about Alito." True, Republicans have made that complaint -- but the AP should have told readers that several Republicans have made up their minds, making the Republican complaint more than a little hypocritical.

In repeatedly suggesting that Democrats had made up their minds about Alito before the hearing began -- and less frequently suggesting it of Republicans -- news outlets reinforced a claim often made by Republicans: Democrats would oppose anybody Bush nominated. And by focusing on the Democrats, the media let Republicans off the hook. In fact, the Republicans' job is no more to grease the wheels for Bush's nominee than the Democrats' is to decide in advance to oppose.

And left unexamined amid all this talk of who made up their mind when is the question of when it would make sense for a senator to make up his or her mind. Which is more defensible, a senator quickly deciding to oppose Alito, or to support him? Since it is conservatives who are pushing the "closed-minded" talking point, it might be assumed that a quick decision to oppose Alito is less defensible than a quick decision to support him. Indeed, it seems many in the media have reached this conclusion. But is it rational? Is it correct?

Not if you consider that one single fact about a nominee could be enough to justify opposing him or her -- but one fact isn't enough to justify supporting a nominee. To take an extreme example, if a senator found out that a nominee had murdered someone, nobody would expect that senator to wait until finding out the nominee's view of Griswold v. Connecticut -- or that such a view would matter.

But if the senator knew the nominee's view of Griswold, we wouldn't expect him or her to think that sufficient information on which to reach a decision on their nomination: the senator, one hopes, would still want to know the nominee's views on other legal issues, the nominee's ethical suitability for office, and whether the nominee was a murderer.

Alito hearings double standard, part two

In the wake of the bungling of the Hurricane Katrina response by Michael D. Brown, President Bush's former Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director, several news reports questioned how thorough Senate Democrats were during his nomination hearing when Brown was first nominated to work at FEMA in 2002.

CNN focused on the Brown hearing during the September 14, 2005, edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight. Dobbs introduced a segment by correspondent Ed Henry by saying, "It turns out many of the very people publicly blasting Brown's performance are the very same people who played a significant, critical role in his winning the job in the first place." Henry began his report:

HENRY: Democrats have acted surprised and outraged that the president's FEMA director had next to no experience.

[...]

But Democrats were running the Senate when Brown was easily confirmed as FEMA's deputy director in June 2002. The Democrat in charge of the confirmation hearing, Joe Lieberman [D-CT], declared he would support Brown because of his, quote, "extensive management experience."

Only four of 17 senators on the committee showed up for that hearing, which lasted only 42 minutes, with no tough questions about Brown's nine years running an Arabian horse association.

When pressed by CNN about whether he did a tough enough job scrutinizing Brown, Lieberman put the onus on the president.

Likewise, USA Today reported on September 28, 2005:

For all the criticism of Brown as being unqualified, the Senate had a shot at questioning his credentials in 2002, but it didn't. The confirmation hearing on Brown's nomination as FEMA's second-in-command lasted 42 minutes. Only four members attended. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., then the confirmation committee chairman, promised support. The Senate confirmed Brown, who had been at the agency one year, by a voice vote. No hearing or vote was required when Brown was promoted in 2003 to run FEMA.

News organizations, in short, chided Democrats for not having conducted extensive hearings examining Brown's nomination to be deputy director of FEMA.

What does that have to do with Alito?

News organizations are now criticizing Democrats for being too aggressive in examining Alito's record -- and for virtually ignoring the fact that not only are Republicans not thoroughly examining Alito's background, they are actively trying to stop the public from finding out anything about him.

Fox News called Democrats "vicious"; CNN's Henry uncritically repeated Republican spin that Democrats are "just really hitting below the belt"; CBS News' Gloria Borger suggested that Democrats may have gone "a step too far" -- a statement echoed by NBC's Katie Couric.

CNN's Blitzer suggested that Democrats' efforts to examine documents relating to an organization Alito belonged to was "simply a fishing expedition designed to look for something that may or may not be there." His CNN colleague, Bob Franken, declared that the Democrats' "questioning could turn to the desperate side." Also on CNN, John King told viewers: "The Democrats are looking ... either for some way to trip him up on the way to nomination or for some -- perhaps a reason to justify a filibuster." And Henry - who, just a few months earlier, had chided Democrats for not being aggressive enough in conducting confirmation hearings -- said: "Democrats signaled they were heading into the attack mode yesterday in their opening statements."

To recap: News organizations chided Democrats for not spending much time examining the background of a nominee for deputy director of FEMA. Now, they accuse Democrats who ask a Supreme Court nominee -- a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land -- questions about his background and his legal opinions of "demonization," conducting a "fishing expedition," being in "attack mode," and being "vicious."

Meanwhile, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are actively trying to prevent an examination of Alito's qualifications and suitability for the court. They are not only failing to take their advice-and-consent role seriously, they are actually trying to stop the American public from learning about a nominee to the Supreme Court. They are working for the nominee and the Bush administration, not on behalf of their constituents or in accordance with their constitutional role.

Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX] specifically told Alito he thought it was not "fair" for other members of the Committee to ask Alito if there is a constitutional right to abortion: "I think in all fairness the question is not a fair one to ask you, whether the right to an abortion is written in this document." But that was positively hard-hitting in comparison to a "question" Cornyn asked Alito:

CORNYN: Well, I wonder if you're aware of one thing that he [Judge A. Leon Higginbotham] was quoted as having said. This is out of the Los Angeles Times, comments he made about you to Judge Timothy Lewis. Quoted in the Los Angeles Times, quote, "Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit with on the court. He's a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito is my kind of conservative. He is intellectually honest. He doesn't have an agenda. He is not an ideologue."

Were you aware that Judge Higginbotham had said that about you?

And the following is an actual exchange between Sen. Jeff Sessions [R-AL] and Alito:

SESSIONS: Judge Alito, you know the salary that a federal judge makes; is that right?

ALITO: I do, all too well.

SESSIONS: Do you know what it would be on the Supreme Court?

ALITO: I actually don't know exactly, no.

SESSIONS: A little more, I think. Not much. Do you think you can live on that?

ALITO: I can. I've lived on a federal judge's salary up to this point.

Well, good thing we cleared that up.

But while reporters have focused much attention on the supposed impropriety of Democrats using confirmation hearings to actually exercise some congressional oversight, very little media attention has been paid to the Republicans' decision to make a mockery of the hearings.

Put it all together, and what do you have?

Democrats get criticized for lax oversight in conducting Brown's confirmation hearing.
Democrats get criticized for aggressive oversight in Alito's confirmation hearing.
Republicans make a mockery of the very notion of "congressional oversight" in their conduct of the Alito hearings -- and their conduct escapes media notice.
Chris Matthews: Presidential law-breaking just "part of the job"

An old sports cliché holds that it is far more difficult to defend a championship than to pursue one. That may be true, but 2005 Misinformer of the Year Chris Matthews showed this week that he won't give up his title without a fight.

On the January 12 edition of his MSNBC television show, Matthews declared that breaking the law might be part of the president's job:

MATTHEWS: We're under attack on 9-11. A couple of days after that, if I were president of the United States and somebody said we had the ability to check on all the conversations going on between here and Hamburg, Germany, where all the Al Qaeda people are, or somewhere in Saudi [Arabia], where they came from and their parents are, and we could mine some of that information by just looking for some key words like "World Trade Center" or "Pentagon," I'd do it.

NSA WHISTLEBLOWER RUSSELL TICE: Well, you'd be breaking the law.

MATTHEWS: Yeah. Well, maybe that's part of the job. We'll talk about it. We'll be right back with Russ Tice. You're watching Hardball on MSNBC.

Somehow, presidential law-breaking seems inconsistent with the constitutional requirement that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" -- though it does seem to be addressed directly by the provision stating that the "President ... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Also this week, Matthews declared during a discussion of the Jack Abramoff scandal that "you have to be a real ideologue, a real partisan to believe that one party's more crooked than the other."

While it's safe to assume that there is little inherently corrupt about being either a Republican or a Democrat, and that the overwhelming majority of members of both parties are not corrupt, Matthews wasn't discussing party membership in the abstract, or among rank-and-file membership. He was discussing congressional leaders, in Washington, of the two parties. And in that context, it's abundantly clear on which side of the aisle crookedness -- or, to borrow a word National Review editor Rich Lowry used, "perfidy" -- predominates.

Media continues to spin Bush domestic spying operation

While most media figures haven't been quite as brazen in downplaying the Bush administration's apparently illegal domestic spying operation as Matthews has, misinformation about the program continues to run rampant.

Several news organizations, for example, reported Bush's January 11 assertion that he acted legally in authorizing the program -- without noting the program's legality is very much in dispute and, in fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service and a former National Security Agency general counsel have both questioned Bush's legal defense of the wiretapping.

Others, like Rush Limbaugh, assert that "Americans were not spied on without a warrant." But Limbaugh has no basis for that claim; the wiretapping program is controversial precisely because evidence suggests that Bush authorized the NSA to spy on people within the United States without obtaining warrants. It's worth noting that Bush has not said, "Americans were not spied on without a warrant."

01-12\13 ISP was down for 19 hours. That makes downtime about six days and 21 hours for the past 365 days, but who's counting. Sorry for the inconvenience.

The Pogrom Continues in Iraq 65/

Sen. Kennedy Comments on Alito

01-12-06

The editorial Sen. Kennedy wants Judge Alito to read.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:50 p.m. EST

(Editor's note: This editorial appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 17, 1985. This afternoon Sen. Ted Kennedy asked Judge Sam Alito if he had read it.)

Princeton President William Bowen has a novel and refreshing answer to a question that troubles a number of his peers today: How do you handle a bunch of alumni and students who are actively criticizing what is going on at the school? When a group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton wrote to alumni to express its critical views, President Bowen wrote as well, giving his side of the story.

Other schools facing dissident journals similar to CAP's Prospect have dealt with the recrudescence of campus conservatism less cordially. Yale, for example, continues to press its lawsuit against Yale Lit, saying that the "Yale name" is in danger if the publication continues to use it. All too often on American campuses, academics themselves are willing to abridge academic freedom if the ideas being expressed are contrary to what they regard as prevailing community standards.

The Princeton encounter started last fall when CAP chairman David Condit wrote an appeal for alumni money to help Princeton, arguing that the university could best be helped through a donation to CAP. In a letter dated Dec. 5 sent to many alumni, President Bowen delivered his answer. What emerges, in effect, is a tale of two Princetons: One is the Princeton President Bowen is shaping, and the other is the Princeton Mr. Condit and CAP would like to see instead.

Mr. Condit, for example, argues that Princeton's traditional eating clubs ought to be preserved in their present, independent form. President Bowen, by contrast, believes the clubs should be radically changed: perhaps turned into de facto dormitories, or forced to become co-educational.

Mr. Condit claims that last year 31 out of 33 pregnant students had abortions after receiving counseling from Princeton's sex clinic. President Bowen, on the other hand, argues that Princeton's program is "thoroughly professional and humane" and says that Mr. Condit's comments are "callous."

President Bowen has commented that "You could say it's a whole new school." Mr. Condit and CAP, it appears, would like to see the social mores, curriculum and institutions of Princeton maintained essentially as they were when Bill Bradley or even F. Scott Fitzgerald went there. Probably few people would agree entirely with either one side or the other.

But President Bowen displays a regard for the best in academic traditions by being willing to compete openly and on the merits of his arguments for the support of the university's alumni. Quite possibly F. Scott Fitzgerald would have sided with Mr. Condit, but he would have admired President Bowen for confronting the opposition straightforwardly.

It has always seemed to us that a university, above all else, should be a place where conventional thought is challenged and minds are stretched in free and open debate. President Bowen, in his willingness to engage his critics, sets a good example for his peers.
 

The Pogrom Continues in Iraq 64/

Focus Off Impeachment

01-10-06

How many more soldiers will they murder? WTF? Republican fiscal responsibility?

SEE: New York Times

A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

01-09-06

That's what we were talking about all along. Republican fiscal responsibility...

SEE: TRANSCRIPT

 BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this

01-09-06

They were murdered.

SEE: GUARDIAN 

A letter to the Guardian

Mohamed Al Fayed
Monday January 9, 2006
The Guardian

Dear Sir,
My attention has been drawn to an article by your columnist, Alexander Chancellor, that appeared in your edition of December 24 2005, under the heading: "You pays your money ...."

Rarely have I seen such a vile example of deliberate poisonous malice, thinly disguised as opinion. The Guardian has a fine reputation for scrupulously sticking to the facts. For never allowing the boundaries to blur between fact and comment.

Yet Alexander Chancellor deliberately disregarded the facts to write a hateful and venomous attack on my store and me. Chancellor is an odious creep who has become a disease on the face of the Guardian.

If he wished to make a fool of himself by demonstrating his lack of taste in describing Harrods, the world's most celebrated department store, as "tacky"and "depressing", then that was up to him. But when this journalist jackal poured scorn and derision upon the Book of Condolence, the real purpose of his disgraceful attack became all too clear.
The reason for the Book of Condolence is that, after Diana, Princess of Wales, and my beloved son, Dodi Fayed, were murdered, people who came to Harrods from all over the world asked me to create a place where they could go to remember those two wonderful young people and to record their tributes to them.

The book lies open at Harrods, every day. In it, visitors record their thoughts and prayers for the loving couple who died together, so tragically, eight years ago. So far, people of all races and creeds have filled 50 books with messages of love and kindness.

And that is exactly what Alexander Chancellor's attack on Harrods, and myself, was really all about. How dare this morally bankrupt swine sneer at the memory of a loving young couple whose lives were so cruelly snuffed out, and at ordinary decent people who feel so strongly about them?

The truth is that your columnist, Alexander Chancellor, is an establishment toady who is using his position on the Guardian for his own ends. He is a middle-class racist willing to sink to any depths to please his establishment masters. And he cannot bear the thought of the memory of the love of the Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed, being kept alive.

Before worming his way into the employ of your newspaper, which came as something of a surprise to most journalists, the poisonous Chancellor was the cringing lackey of Conrad Black, the disgraced owner of the Daily Telegraph.

As editor of the Guardian, I suspect that you will feel duty bound to defend your columnist and tell me that he is free to write whatever he wishes, so long as it is within the law. But I wonder if it has crossed your mind that there was yet another, darker reason why Chancellor abused the hospitality of your columns to attack me.

You will remember that I helped bring down the last Tory government. And that the Guardian was alone in supporting me. I regarded it then as my patriotic duty to help get rid of politicians that were rotten to the core. And I did so at no small risk to myself. But I never wavered. And neither did the Guardian. Can you imagine how angry Mr Chancellor, the Tories' champion, must have been? With both me and the Guardian?

Perhaps you should privately remind your double-dealing, sleazy, columnist that the Guardian is a newspaper, not a platform for his slimy establishment propaganda. And that if Chancellor wishes to deliberately grind his axe, by confusing fact with comment, he might be happier working for another, less scrupulous newspaper.

Though, having failed at so many jobs, it is difficult to imagine upon whom he might next inflict himself.

Yours faithfully,

M Al Fayed, chairman

05-06

MERRY X-MAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR & MERRY CHRISTMAS

To Everyone

Shalom!

One can dream, can't one?

In Russia, Christmas is on the 7th of January but people still give each other gifts on New Years eve...

This is an archive

Archive

"One of the

 penalties for

 refusing to

 participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country… corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” - Abraham Lincoln

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”-
Thomas Jefferson
 

Fair Use Notice

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. But since the site's server is based in the FREE country of RUSSIA this all may not apply and I can do and say whatever I like. Have a nice day...